In a significant legal development, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas can mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. This decision, articulated in the closely divided en banc decision in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, reversed a previous lower court injunction against Texas Senate Bill 10.
The court’s majority opinion dismissed the relevance of the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision in Stone v. Graham, which previously deemed the mandatory display of the Ten Commandments unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit judges argued that Stone was reliant on the outdated “lemon test,” which assessed whether laws had a secular purpose, primarily advanced religion, or entailed excessive religious entanglement. This ruling moves instead to an analysis based on history and tradition, acknowledging that religious references such as the Ten Commandments are embedded in the nation’s public and legal history.
This law stipulates that a state-approved version of the Ten Commandments, at least 16 by 20 inches in size, must be posted in every public school classroom, provided through donations. Importantly, the majority opinion noted that the requirement does not compel any religious activity, as students are neither required to read nor follow the commandments. The court shared the state’s view that such displays fulfill an educational role, portraying the Ten Commandments as integral to the moral framework of Western legal systems.
The legal challenge was spearheaded by a coalition of families from multiple faith backgrounds. They contended that the law imposes a religious doctrine on students, citing First Amendment violations. Initially, a federal district court sided with the plaintiffs by issuing a preliminary injunction based on the unconstitutionality of the law. Several other district court rulings, such as in Cribbs-Ringer v. Comal Independent School District, also halted the law’s enactment. Critics, supported by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the law effectively endorses a specific Protestant version of the Ten Commandments and intervenes in parental rights regarding religious education.
This ruling now propels Texas into a larger national debate over religious displays in public spaces, reflecting broader cultural and legal tensions around the intersection of education, religion, and state endorsement. The case is poised to influence discussions on religious expression in public domains, potentially setting a new precedent for other states considering similar measures.